McLeod v Napthali [2021] NSWSC 1621

McLeod v Napthali [2021] NSWSC 1621

Each plaintiff was a child of the deceased, filed within time, and, despite receiving some testamentary provision, had not been left with proper provision for his proper maintenance, education and advancement in life given his destitution, reliance on a disability pension and the deceased's contribution to the plaintiffs' life struggles. Further provision was warranted, but it was limited by the needs of other beneficiaries and respect for the deceased's considered testamentary scheme.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Family Provision Claim Under Chapter 3 of the Succession Act 2006 NSW / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Relief granted in part; further family provision ordered for both plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
['family Provision' 'adult Children' 'estrangement' 'testamentary Provision' 'costs From Estate']
['succession' 'equity'] ['family Provision' 'adult Children' 'estrangement' 'testamentary Provision' 'costs From Estate']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Family Provision Claim Under Chapter 3 of the Succession Act 2006 NSW / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether each plaintiff was eligible to apply for a family provision order as a child of the deceased.' 'Whether the applications were filed within the time limited by the Succession Act 2006 NSW.' "Whether the provision made for each plaintiff in the deceased's will was proper provision for his proper maintenance, education and advancement in life." "What further provision, if any, ought to be made for the plaintiffs from the deceased's estate."]

Ratio Decidendi

Each plaintiff was a child of the deceased, filed within time, and, despite receiving some testamentary provision, had not been left with proper provision for his proper maintenance, education and advancement in life given his destitution, reliance on a disability pension and the deceased's contribution to the plaintiffs' life struggles. Further provision was warranted, but it was limited by the needs of other beneficiaries and respect for the deceased's considered testamentary scheme.

Court Disposition

Relief granted in part; further family provision ordered for both plaintiffs.

Orders

  • ['ORDER that in addition to the provision made for him in the will of the deceased, the first plaintiff receive a legacy of $25,000.' 'ORDER that in addition to the provision made for him in the will of the deceased, the second plaintiff receive a legacy of $60,000.' "ORDER that the plaintiffs' costs of the...